Friday, January 30, 2026

Finally Ready To Fight Back

Editor’s Note: A directive from U.S. President Donald Trump on a potential strike on Iran is expected in the coming days, once all of the U.S. military assets heading to the region are in place, a senior U.S. official recently told Israel’s Channel 12.

“America can’t do a thing against us,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini bragged while holding our hostages.

Then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s administration had undermined the Shah’s government in favor of the Islamists who seized power and then prevented the U.S. Embassy’s Marines guards from defending the facility and the people inside against the Muslim “student” groups who claimed to be coming in peace.

The “peaceful” student activists took over our embassy and held our people hostage.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei taunted President Trump with the same slogan in June after being asked to give up Iran’s nuclear weapons program, echoing his regime’s founder. “Our response to the U.S. nonsense is clear: They cannot do a thing in this matter.”

Carter’s failure to defend Americans had turned Khomeini’s taunt into a confident slogan. America couldn’t stop its diplomats and soldiers from being taken hostage and paraded through the streets. In subsequent decades, future administrations couldn’t stop other Americans from being taken hostage again, tortured, and executed. By the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian IEDs alone had accounted for as many as 1,000 American victims.

Qasem Soleimani — a commander of the Quds Force, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps division primarily responsible for extraterritorial and clandestine military operations — had thought that America couldn’t do a damn thing. In January 2020, President Trump taught him otherwise with a Reaper drone, leading to his assassination. It was the first time in a long time that America had done a thing about Iran.

In 1983, Iranian backed terrorists set off truck bombs in Beirut that killed 220 U.S. Marines and 21 other servicemembers. Mohsen Rafighdoost, Khomeini’s bodyguard who helped found Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps terror force, boasted that, “both the TNT and the ideology, which in one blast sent to hell 400 officers, NCOs, and soldiers at the Marines headquarters, were provided by Iran.”

Beyond a few airstrikes, America didn’t do a thing because the intelligence proving Iran was behind the attack was suppressed so that it never reached then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Eventually we placed multimillion dollar rewards on the heads of Hezbollah’s commander-in-chief Ibrahim Aqil and senior member Fuad Shukr, who continued to live without a care in the world until Israel took them out following October 7th. Meanwhile, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration assured the media that it had nothing to do with the Israeli strikes.

Over the decades, Iran’s Hezbollah proxies took dozens of American hostages. Some were released after months or years in exchange for concessions, while others were killed. In 1984, Hezbollah kidnapped, tortured and killed CIA Station Chief William Francis Buckley, whose identity they learned from classified documents seized from the embassy in Tehran. Buckley was transferred to Iran and tortured there, before being returned to Lebanon. Videos distributed by Iran’s jihadists showed him in agony: “Buckley was close to a gibbering wretch. His words were often incoherent; he slobbered and drooled and, most unnerving of all, he would suddenly scream in terror, his eyes rolling helplessly and his body shaking.”

America once again did not do a thing.

In 1985, Hezbollah hijacked a Trans World Airlines flight from Cairo to San Diego with en route stops in Athens, Rome, Boston, and Los Angeles. The hijackers demanded the release of a total of 766 Shia Muslims from Israeli custody and took the plane repeatedly to Beirut and Algiers. One of the terrorists was Imad Mughniyeh, who had also interrogated Buckley. Navy diver Robert Stethem was beaten and kicked to death before his body was dumped on the tarmac.


“They were jumping in the air and landing full force on his body. He must have had all his ribs broken,” said Uli Derickson, one of the onboard flight attendants. “I was sitting only 15 feet away. I couldn’t listen to it. I put my fingers in my ears. I will never forget. I could still hear. They put the mike up to his face so his screams could be heard by the outside world.”


Instead of sending a message and holding Iran and its terrorists accountable, the United States made a deal to have Israel free hundreds of jihadists.


In 1988, Hezbollah kidnapped Colonel William R. Higgins and tortured him for months. An autopsy found that he had been starved, the skin on his face had been partially removed along with his tongue, and he had also been castrated. Finally his body was dumped near a mosque.


“I am one of a small handful of Americans who knows the exact manner of Rich’s death. If I were to describe it to you now — which I will not — I can guarantee that a significant number of people in this room would become physically ill,” a friend of Higgins stated.


Finally, decades later, in the last days of U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration, the CIA teamed up with Israel to take out Mughniyah with a car bomb. America had finally done a thing. But Iran continues to hold American hostages today, such as former FBI agent Robert Levinson.


In 1996, Shiite terrorists backed by Iran bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemembers, but Iran was also pursuing other options, including a new Sunni terror group named Al-Qaeda. In fact, the 9/11 Commission noted, “Iran facilitated the transit of Al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11” (with the aid of Soleimani, later taken out by Trump) and “Al-Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah.” Following 9/11, some Taliban leaders relocated to Iran to fight America. By 2010, Iran was paying $1,000 for each American soldier killed, and Iranian IEDs were claiming American lives.


After losing in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda relocated much of its operations to Iran. Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, responsible for the bombings of American embassies across Africa, was taken out in Tehran in a joint Israeli-American operation during President Trump’s first term.


Saif al-Adel, the current leader of Al-Qaeda, lives in Tehran and has been there for two decades. Even while supposedly in Iranian custody, he ordered the 2003 bombings in Saudi Arabia that killed nine Americans.


As recently as 2024, Iran and its terrorist proxies continued murdering American soldiers and contractors, including Scott Patrick Dubis in 2023 and Sergeant William Rivers, Specialist Kennedy Sanders, and Specialist Breonna Moffett in 2024.


No matter how much politicians and social media influencers may insist that we’re not at war with Iran, the Islamic terrorist state has been at war with us for 47 years. And it is still fighting us. It only takes one side to have a war. Fighting back isn’t what makes the war endless. Refusing to fight back or to fight back effectively is what makes wars endless.


For the most part, the Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior administrations for failed to act. The Obama and Biden administrations took it one step further by aiding Iran. President Trump finally stood up to Iran and showed the Islamic terrorist state that there would be consequences.


“America can’t do a thing against us,” the ayatollahs mocked us as they killed our people. For the first time in two generations, the smirks have been wiped off their murderous faces.


Those complaining that President Trump is too tough on Iran aren’t upset because the president isn’t keeping his campaign promises, but because he is. They’re not upset because he changed his foreign policy, but because they want the old Carter and Obama appeasement of Iran back.


America is not contemplating bombing some “random middle eastern country.” After 47 years of kidnapping, terrorism, torture, and murder, we’re fighting back against Iran’s war on us.

Thursday, January 29, 2026

13 Ikkarei Emunah #45: What Age Will We Be When We Arise From The Dead?

Subject: The Theological Status of Resurrection and the Ontology of Renewal

Based on: Iggeres HaPachad Yitzchak (Letter 50) and the Leshem Shevo Ve’Achlama

1. The Dispute Regarding Dogma (Rashi vs. Rambam)

The lecture analyzes a letter from Rav Hutner addressing a student's erroneous distinction. The student suggested that while Rashi views Resurrection as derived directly from the Torah’s text (Min HaTorah), Maimonides (Rambam) views it merely as a necessary principle of faith, but not one that must be derived from the Torah verses themselves.

Rav Hutner forcefully rejects this distinction, asserting it is forbidden to claim the Rambam does not view Resurrection as Min HaTorah. His argument rests on the classification of Resurrection as a Divine Promise (Havtacha).

The Argument of Assurance: Rav Hutner argues that Resurrection is fundamentally a promise made by God regarding the future. Faith in Resurrection is not just belief in an event, but reliance on God’s faithfulness to keep His word. Therefore, it is inherently Min HaTorah, because the Torah is the record of that promise.

Osos vs. Mofsim: Rav Hutner clarifies the Rambam’s position by stating that one must believe not only in Mofsim [Supernatural Wonders] but in Osos (Signs/Predictions) as well.

Denying a Havtacha (like Resurrection) is a denial of Osos—it implies God's word is unreliable.

2. The Metaphysics of Renewal (The Leshem)

The lecture then utilizes the Leshem to deepen the understanding of what this "Promise" actually entails. The Leshem argues that Resurrection is not the recycling of an old life, but a revelation of Eternity (Nitzchiyus).

The question: If a person dies at 80, does he return as an 80-year-old and he just continues on from there until .... [according to the Ramban - forever. According to the Rambam - until he dies again and then comes back as a spirit].

The Solution: Life in this world is a process of accumulating "vitality" (Chiyus). Every moment of spiritual growth, every mitzvah, and every stage of development creates a permanent spiritual imprint. Currently, these moments seem to disappear into the past. However, Techiyas HaMeisim is the "Ingathering of Lights"—the restoration of all the vitality a person ever generated, from birth to death, into a single, rectified, and eternal existence. So no, he will not retrun the age when he died and pick up where he left off. He will come back with the vitality accrued throughout his life. And so with all the cosmos. 

3. Two Tracks of Existence

The class maps these theological concepts onto two tracks:

The Track of Nature (Teva): The physical world, which appears linear and finite (things die and disappear).

The Track of Wonders (Nissim): The "Torah Track," rooted in the Exodus, where nothing spiritual is ever lost. The Resurrection is the ultimate revelation that the "Supernatural Track" was the true reality all along.

 The Citation from the Rambam

The source discussed is the Rambam’s Ma’amar Techiyas HaMeisim (Treatise on the Resurrection). In the introduction/opening chapter, the Rambam explains the severity of denying the Resurrection:

"The denial of the Resurrection leads to the denial of wonders (niflaos), and the denial of the wonder (mofes) is a denial of the Core (Ikkar) and an exit from the religion."

4. The Question

The shiur raises a logical difficulty regarding this formulation. A heretic (Kofer) is usually defined by their current beliefs, not by the slippery slope of where those beliefs might lead. The question asks:

"What logic (svara) is there to say that one who merely breaches a fence—which will only eventually lead to heresy—should be considered a heretic right now (mei’hashta)? Why is he not merely a sinner, but a full heretic immediately?"

5. The Answer 

The Rambam is not describing a consequential chain of events (i.e., "A leads to B"), but rather a fundamental relationship between a root and its branches.

The Root of Miracles: Techiyas HaMeisim is not just "another miracle"; it is the shoresh (root) and the ultimate archetype of the concept of the supernatural (Mofsim).

The Logic: When one denies the Resurrection, they are not simply rejecting a specific future event. They are rejecting the very category of Nissim (miracles). Since the Resurrection is the ultimate expression of God overriding nature, denying it is an immediate rejection of the possibility of the supernatural. Since the Torah stands on the "leg" of the supernatural (Revelation and Providence), rejecting the possibility of Resurrection is an immediate rejection of the Torah itself.

 Summary: The Theological Status of Resurrection and the Ontology of Renewal


This summary explores the theological status of Resurrection (Techiyas HaMeisim) and its metaphysical implications, drawing from Rav Hutner's analysis of a student's error and the Leshem's perspective on renewal.


1. The Dispute Regarding Dogma (Rashi vs. Rambam):


   Rav Hutner's Rejection: Rav Hutner refutes the idea that Rambam doesn't view Resurrection as derived from the Torah (Min HaTorah).

   Resurrection as Divine Promise (Havtacha): He argues Resurrection is a promise from God, making faith in it inherently Min HaTorah. The Torah records this promise.

   Osos vs. Mofsim: Belief in both supernatural wonders (Mofsim) and signs/predictions (Osos) is crucial. Denying Resurrection is denying Osos, implying God's word is unreliable.


2. The Metaphysics of Renewal (The Leshem):


   Resurrection as Revelation of Eternity: The Leshem posits that Resurrection isn't a recycling of old life but a revelation of Eternity (Nitzchiyus).

   Accumulation of Vitality (Chiyus): Life involves accumulating vitality through spiritual growth and mitzvot, creating permanent spiritual imprints.

   Ingathering of Lights: Techiyas HaMeisim is the restoration of all accumulated vitality into a single, rectified, and eternal existence.


3. Two Tracks of Existence:


   Track of Nature (Teva): The physical world, appearing linear and finite.

   Track of Wonders (Nissim): The "Torah Track," where nothing spiritual is lost. Resurrection reveals this track as the true reality.


4. The Citation from the Rambam:


   Severity of Denying Resurrection: The Rambam's Ma’amar Techiyas HaMeisim states that denying Resurrection leads to denying miracles (niflaos), which leads to denying the core of faith and exiting the religion.


5. The Question:


   Logical Difficulty: Why is someone who breaches a "fence" that eventually leads to heresy considered a heretic immediately? Why aren't they just a sinner?


6. The Answer:


   Root and Branches: The Rambam describes a fundamental relationship, not a consequential chain.

   Resurrection as the Root of Miracles: Techiyas HaMeisim is the shoresh (root) and archetype of the supernatural (Mofsim).

   Denial as Rejection of Nissim: Denying Resurrection is rejecting the very category of miracles, and therefore, the possibility of God overriding nature. Since the Torah relies on the supernatural, rejecting Resurrection is an immediate rejection of the Torah itself.


נושא: המעמד התיאולוגי של תחיית המתים והאונטולוגיה של ההתחדשות

מבוסס על: אגרת הפחד יצחק (מכתב 50) והלשם שבו ואחלמה ועוד:

1. המחלוקת בנוגע לדוגמה (רש"י נגד הרמב"ם)

ההרצאה מנתחת מכתב מהרב הוטנר המכוון להבחנה שגויה של תלמיד. התלמיד הציע שבעוד שרש"י רואה בתחיית המתים נגזרת ישירות מתוך הטקסט של התורה ("מן התורה"), הרמב"ם רואה בה רק עיקרון אמונה הכרחי, אך לא כזה שחייב להיות נגזר מפסוקי התורה עצמם.

הרב הוטנר דוחה בתוקף את ההבחנה הזו, וטוען שאסור לטעון שהרמב"ם אינו רואה בתחיית המתים "מן התורה". הטיעון שלו נשען על הסיווג של תחיית המתים כהבטחה אלוהית (הבטחה).

טיעון הביטחון: הרב הוטנר טוען שתחיית המתים היא ביסודה הבטחה שאלוהים נתן לגבי העתיד. האמונה בתחיית המתים אינה רק אמונה באירוע, אלא הסתמכות על נאמנותו של אלוהים לקיים את דברו. לכן, היא מטבעה "מן התורה", מכיוון שהתורה היא התיעוד של אותה הבטחה.

אותות מול מופתים: הרב הוטנר מבהיר את עמדת הרמב"ם באומרו שיש להאמין לא רק במופתים [ניסים על-טבעיים] אלא גם באותות (סימנים/תחזיות).

הכחשת הבטחה (כמו תחיית המתים) היא הכחשת אותות - זה מרמז שדבר אלוהים אינו אמין.

2. המטאפיזיקה של ההתחדשות (הלשם)

לאחר מכן, ההרצאה משתמשת בלשם כדי להעמיק את ההבנה של מה שה"הבטחה" הזו בעצם טומנת בחובה. הלשם טוען שתחיית המתים אינה מיחזור של חיים ישנים, אלא התגלות של נצחיות (נצחיות).

השאלה: אם אדם מת בגיל 80, האם הוא חוזר כאדם בן 80 והוא פשוט ממשיך משם עד .... [לפי הרמב"ן - לנצח. לפי הרמב"ם - עד שהוא מת שוב ואז חוזר כרוח].

הפתרון: החיים בעולם הזה הם תהליך של צבירת "חיוניות" (חיוס). כל רגע של צמיחה רוחנית, כל מצווה וכל שלב התפתחות יוצרים חותם רוחני קבוע. כרגע, נראה שהרגעים האלה נעלמים אל העבר. עם זאת, תחיית המתים היא "קיבוץ האורות" - השבת כל החיוניות שאדם אי פעם יצר, מלידה ועד מוות, לקיום יחיד, מתוקן ונצחי. אז לא, הוא לא יחזור לגיל שבו הוא מת וימשיך מאיפה שהוא הפסיק. הוא יחזור עם החיוניות שנצברה לאורך חייו. וכך גם עם כל הקוסמוס.

3. שני מסלולי קיום

השיעור ממפה את המושגים התיאולוגיים הללו לשני מסלולים:

מסלול הטבע (טבע): העולם הפיזי, שנראה ליניארי וסופי (דברים מתים ונעלמים).

מסלול הניסים (ניסים): "מסלול התורה", המושרש ביציאת מצרים, שבו שום דבר רוחני לא הולך לאיבוד לעולם. תחיית המתים היא ההתגלות האולטימטיבית ש"המסלול העל-טבעי" היה המציאות האמיתית כל הזמן.

הציטוט מהרמב"ם

המקור שנדון הוא מאמר תחיית המתים של הרמב"ם. במבוא/פרק הפתיחה, הרמב"ם מסביר את חומרת הכחשת תחיית המתים:

"הכחשת תחיית המתים מובילה להכחשת נפלאות, והכחשת הפלא (מופת) היא הכחשת העיקר ויציאה מהדת".

4. השאלה

השיעור מעלה קושי לוגי בנוגע לניסוח הזה. כופר מוגדר בדרך כלל על פי אמונותיו הנוכחיות, לא על פי המדרון החלקלק של לאן האמונות האלה עלולות להוביל. השאלה שואלת:

"איזה היגיון (סברה) יש לומר שמי שרק פורץ גדר - אשר רק בסופו של דבר יוביל לכפירה - צריך להיחשב ככופר ממש עכשיו (מהשתא)? מדוע הוא לא רק חוטא, אלא כופר מלא מיד?"

5. התשובה

הרמב"ם אינו מתאר שרשרת אירועים תוצאתית (כלומר, "א' מוביל לב'"), אלא מערכת יחסים בסיסית בין שורש לענפיו.

שורש הניסים: תחיית המתים היא לא רק "עוד נס"; זהו השורש והארכיטיפ האולטימטיבי של מושג העל-טבעי (מופתים).

ההיגיון: כאשר אדם מכחיש את תחיית המתים, הוא לא פשוט דוחה אירוע עתידי ספציפי. הם דוחים את עצם הקטגוריה של ניסים (ניסים). מכיוון שתחיית המתים היא הביטוי האולטימטיבי של אלוהים העוקף את הטבע, הכחשתה היא דחייה מיידית של האפשרות של העל-טבעי. מכיוון שהתורה עומדת על ה"רגל" של העל-טבעי (התגלות והשגחה), דחיית האפשרות של תחיית המתים היא דחייה מיידית של התורה עצמה.

הרצאה זו מנתחת מכתב של הרב הוטנר העוסק בהבחנה שגויה של תלמיד בין תפיסת רש"י את תחיית המתים כנובעת ישירות מהתורה ("מן התורה") לבין תפיסת הרמב"ם אותה כעיקרון אמונה הכרחי בלבד. הרב הוטנר דוחה בתוקף הבחנה זו, וטוען שאסור לטעון שהרמב"ם אינו רואה בתחיית המתים "מן התורה", שכן היא סיווגה כהבטחה אלוהית. לטענתו, אמונה בתחיית המתים אינה רק אמונה באירוע, אלא הסתמכות על נאמנותו של אלוהים לקיים את דברו, ולכן היא מהותית "מן התורה". הרב הוטנר מבהיר את עמדת הרמב"ם באומרו שיש להאמין לא רק במופתים אלא גם באותות, ושכפירה בהבטחה (כמו תחיית המתים) היא כפירה באותות, שכן היא מרמזת על כך שדבר אלוהים אינו אמין. ההרצאה משתמשת בלשם כדי להעמיק את ההבנה של מהות ה"הבטחה" הזו, וטוענת שתחיית המתים אינה מיחזור של חיים ישנים, אלא גילוי של נצחיות. החיים בעולם הזה הם תהליך של צבירת "חיוניות", וכל רגע של צמיחה רוחנית, כל מצווה וכל שלב התפתחות יוצרים חותם רוחני קבוע. תחיית המתים היא "קיבוץ האורות" - שחזור כל החיוניות שאדם יצר אי פעם, מלידה ועד מוות, לקיום יחיד, מתוקן ונצחי. ההרצאה ממפה מושגים תיאולוגיים אלה לשני מסלולים: מסלול הטבע (העולם הפיזי, שנראה ליניארי וסופי) ומסלול הניסים ("מסלול התורה", המושרש ביציאת מצרים, שבו שום דבר רוחני לא הולך לאיבוד). תחיית המתים היא הגילוי האולטימטיבי ש"המסלול העל-טבעי" היה המציאות האמיתית כל הזמן. המקור הנדון הוא מאמר תחיית המתים של הרמב"ם, שבו הוא מסביר את חומרת הכחשת תחיית המתים: "הכחשת תחיית המתים מביאה להכחשת נפלאות, והכחשת המופת היא הכחשת העיקר ויציאה מהדת". ההרצאה מעלה קושי לוגי לגבי ניסוח זה, ושואלת מדוע מי שמפרץ גדר - אשר רק בסופו של דבר יוביל לכפירה - צריך להיחשב כופר מיד. ההרצאה משיבה שהרמב"ם אינו מתאר שרשרת אירועים תוצאתית, אלא יחס יסודי בין שורש לענפיו, שכן תחיית המתים היא השורש והארכיטיפ האולטימטיבי של מושג העל-טבעי, וכאשר מכחישים את תחיית המתים, מכחישים את עצם קטגוריית הניסים.

*   הרב הוטנר דוחה את ההבחנה בין תפיסת רש"י והרמב"ם לגבי תחיית המתים.

*   תחיית המתים היא הבטחה אלוהית, ולכן "מן התורה".

*   יש להאמין גם באותות וגם במופתים.

*   הלשם טוען שתחיית המתים היא גילוי של נצחיות, ולא מיחזור של חיים ישנים.

*   תחיית המתים היא "קיבוץ האורות" - שחזור כל החיוניות שנצברה במהלך החיים.

*   קיימים שני מסלולים: מסלול הטבע ומסלול הניסים.

*   תחיית המתים היא הגילוי האולטימטיבי של המסלול העל-טבעי.

*   הכחשת תחיית המתים היא הכחשת העיקר ויציאה מהדת.

*   תחיית המתים היא השורש והארכיטיפ האולטימטיבי של מושג העל-טבעי.

*   הכחשת תחיית המתים היא הכחשת עצם קטגוריית הניסים.

Points To Ponder

“Be present as the watcher of your mind—of your thoughts and emotions as well as your reactions in various situations. Be at least as interested in what goes on inside you as what happens outside.”

----

"To simplify before you understand the details is ignorance.

To simplify after you understand the details is genius."

---

“As soon as you honor the present moment, all unhappiness and struggle dissolve, and life begins to flow with joy and ease.”

---

“Wherever you are, be there totally. If you find your here and now intolerable and it makes you unhappy, you have three options: remove yourself from the situation, change it, or accept it totally.”

---

​"Success is often found by practicing the fundamentals everyone knows they should be doing, but find too boring or basic to practice routinely."

----

"Work is endless. Exercise is endless. Parenting is endless. Same with marriage, writing, investing, creating, and more. You get to choose the parts of your life, but many of the important things in life cannot be "finished."

Do not approach an endless game with a finite mindset. The objective is not to be done, but to settle into a daily lifestyle you can sustain and that allows you to make daily progress on the areas that matter.

Embrace the fact that life is continual and look for ways to enjoy the daily practice."

----

Expressionist painter Paula Modersohn-Becker reminds us that selfhood is a continual process and making courageous, aligned choices each day is how you author your story:

"I am Me, and I hope to become Me more and more."

Source: Letter to Rainer Maria Rilke (February 17, 1906)

----

"Compete externally and you compare.

Compete internally and you improve."

---

"The ultimate form of preparation is not planning for a specific scenario, but a mindset that can handle uncertainty."

---

"The more you create, the more powerful you become.

The more you consume, the more powerful others become."

----

​"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it."

---

"The truest form of intelligence is designing the life you want to live."


1 Question For You

What story about yourself would you have to retire in order to grow into the life you want?

 

Ritzei Biminuchaseinu

 B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!

alchehrm@gmail.com

---

The Ontological Status of Rest: A Theological Analysis of R'tzei Vimnuchaseinu 


Introduction: The Liturgical Paradox 

This discourse originates from a critical textual analysis of the Shabbat liturgy, specifically the phrase recited in the Amidah prayer: R'tzei Vimnuchaseinu—"Be pleased with our rest." In normative Jewish theology, Divine favor (Ratzon) is typically solicited for active service—the performance of Mitzvot (commandments) or the offering of sacrifices. These are classified as Kum Va’aseh (active performance). Conversely, the "rest" of Shabbat is halachically defined as Shav Ve’al Ta’aseh (passive restraint/cessation from labor). This creates a theological tension: How can one petition the Divine to find favor in a non-action? To resolve this, the discourse constructs a metaphysics of Shabbat wherein the boundaries between action and non-action are fundamentally reordered. 


I. The Coalescence of Love and Fear 

The analysis begins by deconstructing the standard dualities of religious service: Love (Ahavah) and Fear (Yirah). 

The Weekday Dichotomy: During the six days of creation (the realm of Ma'aseh or action), these attributes function separately. Positive commandments stem from the attribute of Love (the drive to connect), while negative prohibitions stem from Fear (the awe of transgression). [Nachmanides]

The Shabbat Synthesis: Citing the axiom that "Remember (Zachor) and Observe (Shamor) were said in a single utterance," the discourse argues that Shabbat represents a singularity where these divergent paths merge. Zachor corresponds to active love, and Shamor to restrictive fear. Their unification in the Divine utterance implies that on Shabbat, the very act of restraint (Shamor) is imbued with the expansive, connective energy of Love (Zachor) and vice versa. Consequently, the "rest" of Shabbat is not merely the absence of labor; it is a passive state that vibrates with the spiritual intensity of active love. 

II. The Juridical and Metaphysical Status of Pleasure (Hana'ah) 

The crux of the argument relies on reclassifying "pleasure" from a subjective sensation to an objective legal and spiritual act. 

The Halachic Precedent: The discourse invokes the Rashba’s commentary regarding Arayot (forbidden sexual relations). The Rashba posits that in these cases, Hana'ah (pleasure) is not merely a byproduct of the sin but constitutes the Ma'aseh (the act itself). Even without a physical action comparable to labor, the experience of pleasure creates a legal liability. 

The Theological Inversion: The discourse applies this principle in the affirmative to Shabbat. If pleasure can constitute a culpable "act" in the realm of sin, it serves as a meritorious "act" in the realm of holiness. Therefore, the Oneg Shabbat (pleasure of Shabbat)—manifested through eating, drinking, and resting—is not a physical indulgence but a mechanism that transforms Menucha (rest) into Ma'aseh (action). On Shabbat, feeling pleasure is the method by which one "performs" the commandment. 

III. Eschatology: The World to Come in the Present 

To explain why pleasure becomes the dominant mode of service on Shabbat, the discourse situates Shabbat within a timeline of cosmic history. 

Action vs. Reward: Rabbinic tradition delineates "This World" (Olam HaZeh) as the time for action/labor, and the "World to Come" (Olam HaBa) as the time for receiving reward (Schar). The primary characteristic of the World to Come is the cessation of toil and the experience of basking in the Divine radiance—pure pleasure. 

Shabbat as a Bridge: Since Shabbat is Me’ein Olam HaBa (a semblance of the World to Come), it adopts the physics of the next world. As one moves closer to the realm of Eternity (Nitzchiyut), the distinction between "working" and "enjoying" dissolves. In the eternal realm, enjoyment is the work. Thus, on Shabbat, the passive enjoyment of the day acts as a functional revelation of the World to Come within the temporal world. 

The Restoration of Eden: The discourse notes that the expulsion from Eden introduced two curses: death and the cessation of pleasure (replaced by toil). Redemption requires the reversal of both. Just as eternal life reverses death, the Oneg of Shabbat reverses the curse of toil. Therefore, experiencing pleasure on Shabbat is an act of Tikkun (rectification), restoring the primal state of Edenic existence. 

IV. Anthropology: The Centrality of Man 

The lecture emphasizes that the human being (Adam) is the specific vessel for this transformation. 

The Manna and the Meals: The requirement to eat three meals on Shabbat is derived from the threefold repetition of the word Hayom (Today) regarding the falling of the Manna. The discourse connects these three "Todays" to the three Divine utterances (Ma'amarim) associated with the creation of Man. 

Man as the Locus of Meaning: Unlike angels or animals, Man possesses Da'as (consciousness/knowledge). It is only through human consciousness that physical matter (food, rest) can be sublimated into spiritual Oneg. The "Earth" (Ha'aretz) is filled with God's glory only when Man "fills" the earth—meaning, when human consciousness permeates the material world via the act of holy pleasure. 

Thought vs. Action: In the week, thought is secondary to action. On Shabbat, because the mode of service is "Rest" (which is internal and mental) and "Pleasure" (which is experiential), the internal world of Man (Machshava and Da'as) takes precedence. This parallels the severity of Hirhurei Aveira (thoughts of sin) regarding Arayot; just as negative thoughts are potent enough to be considered actions in that context, the holy "thoughts" and intentions of Shabbat rest are potent enough to be considered positive actions. 

Conclusion: The Validity of the Petition 

The discourse concludes by resolving the initial difficulty regarding the prayer R'tzei Vimnuchaseinu. We are not asking God to reward us for doing nothing. Rather, we are asking God to recognize that our "Rest" has been successfully transformed. We are petitioning that our cessation of labor not be viewed as mere inactivity, but be accepted as a positive, substantive service—a "sacrifice" of Pleasure offered upon the altar of Time. By stating "Be pleased with our rest," we declare that through the holiness of Shabbat, we have elevated the passive state of human existence into an active engagement with the Divine Will. 

המעמד האונטולוגי של מנוחה: ניתוח תיאולוגי של רצה ומנוחתנו


מבוא: הפרדוקס הליטורגי


השיח נובע מניתוח טקסטואלי ביקורתי של ליטורגיית השבת, במיוחד הביטוי הנאמר בתפילת העמידה: רצה ומנוחתנו - "רצה במנוחתנו". בתיאולוגיה יהודית נורמטיבית, חסד אלוהי (רצון) מתבקש בדרך כלל עבור שירות פעיל - ביצוע מצוות או הקרבת קורבנות. אלה מסווגים כקום ועשה (ביצוע פעיל). לעומת זאת, "מנוחת" השבת מוגדרת הלכתית כשב ואל תעשה (ריסון פסיבי/הימנעות מעבודה). זה יוצר מתח תיאולוגי: כיצד אפשר לבקש מהאלוהים למצוא חן באי-פעולה? כדי לפתור זאת, השיח בונה מטאפיזיקה של שבת שבה הגבולות בין פעולה לאי-פעולה מסודרים מחדש באופן מהותי.


 1. התלכדות של אהבה ויראה


הניתוח מתחיל בפירוק הדואליות הסטנדרטיות של עבודת דת: אהבה (אהבה) ויראה (יראה).


הדיכוטומיה של יום חול: במהלך ששת ימי הבריאה (תחום המעשה או הפעולה), תכונות אלה מתפקדות בנפרד. מצוות חיוביות נובעות מתכונת האהבה (הדחף להתחבר), ואילו איסורים שליליים נובעים מיראה (יראת החטא). [רמב"ן]


סינתזת השבת: תוך ציטוט האקסיומה ש"זכור ושמור נאמרו בדיבור אחד", השיח טוען שהשבת מייצגת יחידות שבה דרכים שונות אלה מתמזגות. זכור מתאים לאהבה פעילה, ושמור לפחד מגביל. האיחוד שלהם בהתבטאות האלוהית מרמז שביום השבת, עצם מעשה הריסון (שמור) חדור באנרגיה המתרחבת והמחברת של אהבה (זכור) ולהיפך. כתוצאה מכך, "מנוחת" השבת אינה רק היעדר עבודה; זהו מצב פסיבי הרוטט בעוצמה הרוחנית של אהבה פעילה.


II. המעמד המשפטי והמטאפיזי של הנאה (הנאה)


עיקר הטיעון מסתמך על סיווג מחדש של "הנאה" מתחושה סובייקטיבית למעשה משפטי ורוחני אובייקטיבי.


התקדים ההלכתי: השיח מזמין את פירושו של הרשב"א בנוגע לעריות (יחסי מין אסורים). הרשב"א קובע שבמקרים אלה, הנאה אינה רק תוצר לוואי של החטא אלא מהווה את המעשה עצמו. גם ללא פעולה פיזית הניתנת להשוואה לעבודה, חווית ההנאה יוצרת אחריות משפטית.


ההיפוך התיאולוגי: השיח מיישם עיקרון זה באופן חיובי על השבת. אם הנאה יכולה להוות "מעשה" אשם בתחום החטא, היא משמשת כ"מעשה" ראוי לשבח בתחום הקדושה. לכן, עונג שבת - המתבטא באכילה, שתייה ומנוחה - אינו פינוק גופני אלא מנגנון ההופך מנוחה למעשה. בשבת, להרגיש הנאה היא השיטה שבה אדם "מבצע" את המצווה.


III. אסכטולוגיה: העולם הבא בהווה


כדי להסביר מדוע ההנאה הופכת לאופן השירות הדומיננטי בשבת, השיח ממקם את השבת בתוך ציר זמן של היסטוריה קוסמית.


פעולה לעומת תגמול: המסורת הרבנית מתארת את "העולם הזה" (עולם הזה) כזמן לפעולה/עבודה, ואת "העולם הבא" (עולם הבא) כזמן לקבלת תגמול (שכר). המאפיין העיקרי של העולם הבא הוא הפסקת העמל והחוויה של התענגות על הזוהר האלוהי - הנאה טהורה.


שבת כגשר: מכיוון שהשבת היא מעין עולם הבא (דמות של העולם הבא), היא מאמצת את הפיזיקה של העולם הבא. ככל שאדם מתקרב לתחום הנצחיות (נצחיות), ההבחנה בין "עבודה" ל"הנאה" מתמוססת. בתחום הנצחי, הנאה היא העבודה. לפיכך, בשבת, ההנאה הפסיבית מהיום פועלת כגילוי פונקציונלי של העולם הבא בתוך העולם הזמני.


שיקום גן עדן: השיח מציין שהגירוש מגן עדן הציג שתי קללות: מוות והפסקת ההנאה (שהוחלפה בעמל). גאולה מחייבת את היפוך שניהם. כשם שחיי נצח הופכים את המוות, כך עונג השבת הופך את קללת העמל. לכן, חווית הנאה בשבת היא מעשה של תיקון, המשחזר את המצב הראשוני של קיום עדני.


IV. אנתרופולוגיה: מרכזיות האדם


ההרצאה מדגישה כי האדם (אדם) הוא הכלי הספציפי לשינוי זה.


המן והארוחות: הדרישה לאכול שלוש ארוחות בשבת נגזרת מהחזרה המשולשת על המילה היום (היום) בנוגע לנפילת המן. השיח מקשר את שלושת ה"היום" הללו לשלושת ההתבטאויות האלוהיות (מאמרים) הקשורות לבריאת האדם.


האדם כמוקד משמעות: בניגוד למלאכים או לבעלי חיים, לאדם יש דעת (תודעה/ידע). רק באמצעות התודעה האנושית ניתן להעלות חומר פיזי (מזון, מנוחה) לעונג רוחני. "הארץ" (הארץ) מתמלאת בכבוד אלוהים רק כאשר האדם "ממלא" את הארץ - כלומר, כאשר התודעה האנושית מחלחלת לעולם החומרי באמצעות מעשה ההנאה הקדושה.


מחשבה לעומת פעולה: בשבוע, המחשבה משנית לפעולה. בשבת, מכיוון שאופן השירות הוא "מנוחה" (שהיא פנימית ומנטלית) ו"הנאה" (שהיא חווייתית), העולם הפנימי של האדם (מחשבה ודעת) מקבל עדיפות. זה מקביל לחומרת הרהורי עבירה בנוגע לעריות; כשם שמחשבות שליליות חזקות מספיק כדי להיחשב לפעולות בהקשר זה, כך ה"מחשבות" והכוונות הקדושות של מנוחת השבת חזקות מספיק כדי להיחשב לפעולות חיוביות.


מסקנה: תוקף הבקשה


השיח מסתיים בפתרון הקושי הראשוני בנוגע לתפילה רצה ומנוחתנו. אנחנו לא מבקשים מאלוהים לתגמל אותנו על כך שלא עשינו דבר. אלא, אנו מבקשים מאלוהים להכיר בכך ש"מנוחתנו" שונתה בהצלחה. אנו מבקשים שהפסקת העבודה שלנו לא תיראה כחוסר פעילות גרידא, אלא תתקבל כשירות חיובי ומהותי - "קורבן" של הנאה המוקרב על מזבח הזמן. באמירת "רצה במנוחתנו", אנו מצהירים שבאמצעות קדושת השבת, העלינו את המצב הפסיבי של הקיום האנושי למעורבות פעילה ברצון האלוהי.



 

Renewable Energy

 B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!

alchehrm@gmail.com

---

The first translation of the Torah into another language – Greek – took place in around the second century BCE, in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy II. It is known as the Septuagint, in Hebrew Targum HaShivim, because it was done by a team of seventy scholars. The Talmud, however, says that at various points the Sages at work on the project deliberately mistranslated certain texts because they believed that a literal translation would simply be unintelligible to a Greek readership. One of these texts was the phrase, “On the seventh day God finished all the work He had made.” Instead, the translators wrote, “On the sixth day God finished.”[1]


What was it that they thought the Greeks would not understand? How did the idea that God made the universe in six days make more sense than that He did so in seven? It seems puzzling, yet the answer is simple. The Greeks could not understand the seventh day, Shabbat, as itself part of the work of Creation. What is creative about resting? What do we achieve by not making, not working, not inventing? The idea seems to make no sense at all.


Indeed, we have the independent testimony of the Greek writers of that period, that one of the things they ridiculed in Judaism was Shabbat. One day in seven Jews do not work, they said, because they are lazy. The idea that the day itself might have independent value was apparently beyond their comprehension. Oddly enough, within a very short period of time the empire of Alexander the Great began to crumble, just as had the earlier city state of Athens that gave rise to some of the greatest thinkers and writers in history. Civilisations, like individuals, can suffer from burnout. It’s what happens when you don’t have a day of rest written into your schedule. As Ahad HaAm said:


“More than the Jewish people has kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept the Jewish people.”


Rest one day in seven and you won’t burn out.


Shabbat, which we encounter for the first time in this week's parsha, is one of the greatest institutions the world has ever known. It changed the way the world thought about time. Prior to Judaism, people measured time either by the sun – the solar calendar of 365 days aligning us with the seasons – or by the moon, that is, by months (“month” comes from the word “moon”) of roughly thirty days. The idea of the seven-day week – which has no counterpart in nature – was born in the Torah and spread throughout the world via Christianity and Islam, both of which borrowed it from Judaism, marking the difference simply by having it on a different day. We have years because of the sun, months because of the moon, and weeks because of the Jews.


What Shabbat gave - and still gives - is the unique opportunity to create space within our lives, and within society as a whole, in which we are truly free. Free from the pressures of work; free from the demands of ruthless employers; free from the siren calls of a consumer society urging us to spend our way to happiness; free to be ourselves in the company of those we love. Somehow this one day has renewed its meaning in generation after generation, despite the most profound economic and industrial change. In Moses’ day it meant freedom from slavery to Pharaoh. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century it meant freedom from sweatshop working conditions of long hours for little pay. In ours, it means freedom from emails, smartphones, and the demands of 24/7 availability.


What our parsha tells us is that Shabbat was among the first commands the Israelites received on leaving Egypt. Having complained about the lack of food, God told them that He would send them manna from heaven, but they were not to gather it on the seventh day. Instead, a double portion would fall on the sixth. That is why to this day we have two challot on Shabbat, in memory of that time.


Not only was Shabbat culturally unprecedented. Conceptually, it was so as well. Throughout history people have dreamed of an ideal world. We call such visions, utopias, from the Greek ou meaning “no” and topos meaning “place.”[2] They are called that because no such dream has ever come true, except in one instance, namely Shabbat. Shabbat is “utopia now,” because on it we create, for twenty-five hours a week, a world in which there are no hierarchies, no employers and employees, no buyers and sellers, no inequalities of wealth or power, no production, no traffic, no din of the factory or clamour of the marketplace. It is “the still point of the turning world,” a pause between symphonic movements, a break between the chapters of our days, an equivalent in time of the open countryside between towns where you can feel the breeze and hear the song of birds. Shabbat is utopia, not as it will be at the end of time but rather, as we rehearse for it now in the midst of time.


God wanted the Israelites to begin their one-day-in-seven rehearsal of freedom almost as soon as they left Egypt, because real freedom, of the seven-days-in-seven kind, takes time, centuries, millennia. The Torah regards slavery as wrong,[3] but it did not abolish it immediately because people were not yet ready for this. Neither Britain nor America abolished it until the nineteenth century, and even then not without a struggle. Yet the outcome was inevitable once Shabbat had been set in motion, because slaves who know freedom one day in seven will eventually rise against their chains.


The human spirit needs time to breathe, to inhale, to grow. The first rule in time management is to distinguish between matters that are important, and those that are merely urgent. Under pressure, the things that are important but not urgent tend to get crowded out. Yet these are often what matter most to our happiness and sense of a life well-lived. Shabbat is time dedicated to the things that are important but not urgent: family, friends, community, a sense of sanctity, prayer in which we thank God for the good things in our life, and Torah reading in which we retell the long, dramatic story of our people and our journey. Shabbat is when we celebrate shalom bayit – the peace that comes from love and lives in the home blessed by the Shechinah, the presence of God you can almost feel in the candlelight, the wine, and the special bread. This is a beauty created not by Michelangelo or Leonardo but by each of us: a serene island of time in the midst of the often-raging sea of a restless world.


The ancient Greeks could not understand how a day of rest could be part of Creation. Yet it is so, for without rest for the body, peace for the mind, silence for the soul, and a renewal of our bonds of identity and love, the creative process eventually withers and dies. It suffers entropy, the principle that all systems lose energy over time.

The Jewish people did not lose energy over time, and remains as vital and creative as it ever was. The reason is Shabbat: humanity’s greatest source of renewable energy, the day that gives us the strength to keep on creating.


[1] Megillah 9a.


[2] The word was coined in 1516 by Sir Thomas More, who used it as the title of his book.


[3] On the wrongness of slavery from a Torah perspective, see the important analysis in Rabbi N. L. Rabinovitch, Mesilot BiLevavam (Maaleh Adumim: Maaliyot, 2015), 38–45. The basis of the argument is the view, central to both the Written Torah and the Mishna, that all humans share the same ontological dignity as the image and likeness of God. This was in the sharpest possible contrast to the views, for instance, of Plato and Aristotle. Rabbi Rabinovitch analyses the views of the Sages, and of Maimonides and Me’iri, on the phrase “They shall be your slaves forever” (Lev. 25:46). Note also the quote he brings from Job 31:13–15, “If I have denied justice to any of my servants…when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account? Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?”

Music - The Language of the Soul

 B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!

alchehrm@gmail.com

---

For the first time since their departure from Egypt, the Israelites do something together. They sing.


“Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord.”


Exodus 15:1

Rashi, explaining the view of Rabbi Nehemiah in the Talmud[1] that they spontaneously sang the song together, says that the Holy Spirit rested on them and miraculously the same words came into their minds at the same time. In recollection of that moment, tradition has named this week Shabbat Shirah, the Sabbath of Song.


What is the place of song in Judaism?


There is an inner connection between music and the spirit. When language aspires to the transcendent and the soul longs to break free of the gravitational pull of the earth, it modulates into song. Music, said Arnold Bennett is “a language which the soul alone understands but which the soul can never translate.” It is, in Richter’s words “the poetry of the air.” Tolstoy called it “the shorthand of emotion.” Goethe said, “Religious worship cannot do without music. It is one of the foremost means to work upon man with an effect of marvel.”


Words are the language of the mind. Music is the language of the soul. So when we seek to express or evoke emotion we turn to melody. Deborah sang after Israel’s victory over the forces of Sisera (Judges 5). Hannah sang when she had a child (I Sam. 2). When Saul was depressed, David would play for him and his spirit would be restored (1 Sam. 16). David himself was known as the “sweet singer of Israel” (II Sam. 23:1). Elisha called for a harpist to play so that the prophetic spirit could rest upon him (II Kings 3:15). The Levites sang in the Temple. Every day, in Judaism, we preface our morning prayers with Pesukei de-Zimra, the ‘Verses of Song’ with their magnificent crescendo, Psalm 150, in which instruments and the human voice combine to sing God’s praises.


Mystics go further and speak of the song of the universe, what Pythagoras called ‘the music of the spheres.’ This is what Psalm means, when it says:


The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands . . . There is no speech, there are no words, where their voice is not heard. Their music[2] carries throughout the earth, their words to the end of the world.


Psalm 19

Beneath the silence, audible only to the inner ear, creation sings to its Creator.


So, when we pray, we do not read: we sing. When we engage with sacred texts, we do not recite: we chant. Every text and every time has, in Judaism, its own specific melody. There are different tunes for Shacharit, Mincha, and Maariv, the morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. There are different melodies and moods for the prayers for a weekday, Shabbat, the three pilgrimage festivals, Pesach, Shavuot, and Succot (which have much musically in common but also tunes distinctive to each), and for the Yamim Noraim, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.


There are different tunes for different texts. There is one kind of cantillation for Torah, another for the Haftara from the prophetic books, and yet another for Ketuvim, the Writings, especially the five Megillot. There is a particular chant for studying the texts of the written Torah, for studying Mishnah and Gemara. So by music alone we can tell what kind of day it is, and what kind of text is being used. There is a map of holy words, and it is written in melodies and songs.


Music has extraordinary power to evoke emotion. The Kol Nidrei prayer with which Yom Kippur begins is not really a prayer at all. It is a dry legal formula for the annulment of vows. There can be little doubt that it is its ancient, haunting melody that has given it its hold over the Jewish imagination. It is hard to hear those notes and not feel that you are in the presence of God on the Day of Judgment, standing in the company of Jews of all places and times as they pleaded with heaven for forgiveness. It is the holy of holies of the Jewish soul. (Lehavdil, Beethoven came close to it in the opening notes of the sixth movement of the C Sharp Minor Quartet op. 131, his most sublime and spiritual work).


Nor can you sit on Tisha b’Av reading Eichah, the Book of Lamentations, with its own unique cantillation, and not feel the tears of Jews through the ages as they suffered for their faith and wept as they remembered what they had lost, the pain as fresh as it was the day the Temple was destroyed. Words without music are like a body without a soul.


For many years I was privileged to be part of a mission of song (together with the Shabbaton Choir and singers Rabbi Lionel Rosenfeld and chazzanim Shimon Craimer and Jonny Turgel). We journeyed to Israel to sing to victims of terror, as well as to people in hospitals, community centres, and food kitchens. We sang for - and with - the injured, the bereaved, the sick and the broken hearted. We danced with people in wheelchairs. One boy who had been blinded and lost half of his family in a suicide bombing, sang a duet with the youngest member of the choir, reducing the nurses and his fellow patients to tears. Such moments are epiphanies, redeeming a fragment of humanity and hope from the random cruelties of fate.


Beethoven wrote over the manuscript of the third movement of his A Minor Quartet the words Neue Kraft fühlend, “Feeling new strength.” That is what you can sense in those hospital wards. You understand what King David meant when he sang to God the words: “You turned my grief into dance; You removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy, that my heart may sing to You and not be silent.” United in song, you feel the strength of the human spirit no terror can destroy.


In his book, Musicophilia, the neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks (no relative, alas) tells the poignant story of Clive Wearing, an eminent musicologist who was struck by a devastating brain infection. The result was acute amnesia. He was unable to remember anything for more than a few seconds. As his wife Deborah put it, ‘It was as if every waking moment was the first waking moment.’


Unable to thread experiences together, he was caught in an endless present that had no connection with anything that had gone before. One day his wife found him holding a chocolate in one hand and repeatedly covering and uncovering it with the other hand, saying each time, ‘Look, it's new.’ ‘It’s the same chocolate’, she said. ‘No’, he replied, ‘Look. It’s changed.’ He had no ability to hold onto his memories at all. He lost his past. In a moment of self-awareness he said about himself, ‘I haven’t heard anything, seen anything, touched anything, smelled anything. It’s like being dead.’


Two things broke through his isolation. One was his love for his wife. The other was music. He could still sing, play the organ, and conduct a choir with all his old skill and verve. What was it about music, Oliver Sacks asked, that enabled him, while playing or conducting, to overcome his amnesia? He suggests that when we ‘remember’ a melody, we recall one note at a time, yet each note relates to the whole. He quotes the philosopher of music, Victor Zuckerkandl, who wrote, ‘Hearing a melody is hearing, having heard, and being about to hear, all at once. Every melody declares to us that the past can be there without being remembered, the future without being foreknown.’ Music is a form of sensed continuity that can sometimes break through the most overpowering disconnections in our experience of time.


Faith is more like music than like science. Science analyses, music integrates. And as music connects note to note, so faith connects episode to episode, life to life, age to age in a timeless melody that breaks into time. God is the composer and librettist. We are each called on to be voices in the choir, singers of God’s song. Faith teaches us to hear the music beneath the noise.


So music is a signal of transcendence. The philosopher and musician Roger Scruton writes that it is “an encounter with the pure subject, released from the world of objects, and moving in obedience to the laws of freedom alone.” He quotes Rilke:


Words still go softly out towards the unsayable

And music, always new, from palpitating stones

Builds in useless space its godly home.


The history of the Jewish spirit is written in its songs. The words do not change, but each generation needs its own melodies.


Our generation needs new songs so that we too can sing joyously to God as our ancestors did at that moment of transfiguration when they crossed the Red Sea and emerged, the other side, free at last. When the soul sings, the spirit soars.


[1] Sotah 30b


[2] Kavam, literally “their line,” possibly meaning the reverberating string of a musical instrument. 

Trump's Inspiring Drasha At The Next Siyum HaShas

The setting: MetLife Stadium. The next Siyum HaShas. The lights dim. A single spotlight hits a podium draped in a velvet stender with a gold-leaf "T" on the front. Donald Trump approaches the mic, clears his throat with the dramatic weight of a Mashgiach about to deliver a mussar shmuz, and begins.

The Opening: The "Gevald" Factor

"Rabbis, Roshei Yeshiva, guys in the back row who are just here for the sushi—thank you. What a My'med!! What a gathering! I look out at this crowd and I say, GEVALD! It’s a total Gevald. I’ve seen big crowds, I’ve seen the inauguration crowds, but this is a holy crowd. A very spiritual crowd.

I was talking to my friend Yissochor Frand—great guy, wonderful storyteller, nobody says over a vort like him—and I told him, 'Yiss, the Jewish people, they’re winners. They’ve been learning this book for thousands of years and the ratings just keep going up!'"

The "Vort" (The Trumpian Twist)

"Let’s look at the Parsha, okay? Because it’s a disaster what’s happening in the desert. You look at the Meraglim—the Spies. Total losers. They went into the land, they saw the giants, and they had a 'small' mindset. They said, 'We look like grasshoppers.'

Can you believe that? Grasshoppers!

That’s a low-energy self-image. I would have gone in there and said, 'The giants? They’re fired. We’re building a luxury resort in Chevron, it’s going to be huge, and the milk and honey? We’re going to bottle it and sell it at a premium.'"

The Mussar (The "Shmuz" of the Deal)

Trump leans in close to the mic, his voice dropping to a gravelly, urgent whisper:

"But let’s talk about the tachlis. Let’s talk about the emes. You open the Gemara, you see the debates. Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, Abaye and Rava. They’re fighting! They’re arguing! It’s like a board meeting at Trump Tower, but with more Aramaic.

But why do they do it? They do it for the truth. And let me tell you, the truth is a beautiful thing. It’s a strong thing. Nowadays, people don't like the truth. They like 'fake news.' They like 'fake halacha.' But you guys? You’re in the trenches. You’re doing the Daf. You’re doing the work. You’re making the 'Kinyan' on the crown of Torah, and believe me, it’s a very heavy crown. Very high-quality gold."

The Emotional Crescendo

"I saw a story the other day—a beautiful story, brings a tear to my eyes, really—about a little boy in a DP camp. He didn't have a Gemara. He didn't even have a sandwich. But he had a piece of paper and a pencil. And he wrote one word: 'AMERICA.' Wait, no, he wrote 'TORAH.' And he studied that word. He was a fighter. He was a winner. And today? That boy’s grandson is sitting right there in the tenth row, probably on his phone, but he’s here! That’s 'Netzach Yisrael' for you. That’s the brand! You can’t cancel the Jewish people. You can try, but the contract is ironclad. It’s signed by the Biggest Boss of them all, and his legal team is top-notch."

The Closing Bracha

"So, my blessing to you—the bracha of the century:

May your Parnassa be huge. May your Nachas be record-breaking. And may we all see the Beis HaMikdash rebuilt—and I’ve seen the blueprints, folks, it’s a very impressive structure, very 'classical'—speedily in our days.

And remember: Don't just learn the Torah. Win with the Torah. Because G-d loves winners. 

Thank you, God bless you, and Mazel Tov on the Siyum!

[rousing applause]

Trump Tweeting The Makkos In Real Time

 B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!

alchehrm@gmail.com

---

As the Nile turned to blood and frogs began to fall from the sky, Donald Trump didn’t reach for a staff—il reached for his phone.

📱 @realDonaldTrump • Live Thread

2:04 PM: Just saw the Nile. It’s Red. Total Disaster. The fake news media is calling it "Blood," but I think it’s just a very poorly managed Algae Bloom. Very low IQ water management by Pharaoh. #DrainTheNile

2:18 PM: Frogs everywhere. Millions of them. They’re jumping into the Palace, jumping into the beds. Nasty little creatures. They aren't even the good kind of frogs. They're losers! I’ve seen better frogs at Mar-a-Lago, frankly. #FrogGate

3:45 PM: Lice? No, it's just "Alternative Dandruff." The Egyptians are scratching themselves like crazy. Very weak. If they used my "Gold-Flake Conditioner," they’d be fine. Believe me! I know how to prevent lice. Biden had loads of it and that helped me beat him. #ScratchyPharaoh

🐪 The "Pestilence" Policy Update

5:30 PM: All the cattle are dying. Sad! I told Pharaoh he should have diversified into real estate. You can’t eat a building, but a building doesn't get the flu. The Egyptian economy is tanking. I’m looking at buying the Pyramids for pennies on the dollar. #GizaCondos

8:12 PM: Massive Hail storm. Biggest hail anyone has ever seen. The balls of ice are huge—like golf balls, but without the dimples. I’m out here on the balcony, total strength, not even wearing a coat. The Egyptians are hiding under their tables. #ColdFront

10:44 PM: Locusts just arrived. They’re eating everything. They’re like the Radical Left—they just want to take, take, take. They’re eating the wheat, they’re eating the barley. I’m going to build a net. A big, beautiful, translucent net. And I’m going to make the Locusts pay for it! #BugWall

🌑 The Darkness Review

"People are saying it's been dark for three days. I don't see it. I have the best lights. My room is glowing. If it’s dark in your house, it’s probably because you didn't pay your electric bill. Typical Egyptian laziness. Moses is looking very bright right now, literally. He’s got a glow."

🏆 The Final Result

1:15 AM: Pharaoh finally let them go. He’s a quitter. I don't like quitters. If he would have listened to me he would have learned how to make Egypt great again. Moses is leading the people into the desert. No hotels, no buffets, just crackers. Very "Rustic." I wish them luck, but they’re going to miss the Nile. It was a great river, before it became a smoothie. #ExodusBigly 

The Holocaustwashing of Every Cause

 B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!

alchehrm@gmail.com

---

There is a word for what keeps happening, and we should start naming it plainly: Holocaustwashing. It is the reflexive habit of borrowing the language, imagery, and moral gravity of the Holocaust and pasting it onto contemporary causes that may be serious, urgent, and emotionally charged — but are nowhere near the scale, intent, or horror of what actually happened to the Jews of Europe.


This is not a defense of injustice. It is a defense of truth, proportion, and memory.


The Holocaust was not a generic human tragedy. It was an industrialized, state-engineered project of total annihilation. It involved the systematic dehumanization, dispossession, deportation, and murder of six million Jews — men, women, children, infants — across an entire continent. It used ghettos, slave labor, starvation, mass shootings, gas chambers, crematoria, and a bureaucracy designed to make extermination efficient, repeatable, and irreversible. It was not metaphorical. It was not rhetorical. It was not a warning sign. It was the end state.


Whole communities were wiped from existence: families, towns, and centuries of culture were erased almost overnight. The population shifts brought on by the Holocaust, combined with postwar Jewish emigration, were staggering. Europe’s Jewish population fell from approximately 9.5 million in 1933 to about 3.5 million in 1950. In 1933, 60 percent of the world’s Jews lived in Europe; by 1950, only a third did.


Some of the continent’s largest communities were virtually destroyed. Poland, which had more than three million Jews in 1933, saw its population reduced to roughly 45,000 by 1950. Romania’s Jewish population fell from nearly 800,000 to 300,000. Central Europe was devastated: Germany from over 500,000 to 37,000; Hungary from just under 500,000 to 190,000; Czechoslovakia from 350,000 to 17,000; Austria from 200,000 to 18,000. Southern Europe fared no better: Greece from 70,000 to 7,000; Yugoslavia from 70,000 to 4,000; Italy from 50,000 to 30,000; and Bulgaria from 50,000 to 7,000.


The scale, speed, and intent of this destruction are what make the Holocaust incomparable. No modern tragedy, no political failure, no human-rights violation — even those deserving of our time and attention — approaches this combination of systematic intent, industrialized efficiency, and sheer numbers.


Yet, today, Holocaust language is deployed casually and strategically, less to illuminate reality than to weaponize moral shock. This is not accidental. Holocaustwashing thrives because it instantly confers moral authority, short-circuits debate, and rewards maximalism. In an outrage economy where the most extreme framing wins attention, Holocaust comparisons function like a nuclear option: Once invoked, disagreement becomes immoral by definition.


Police detention centers are called “concentration camps.” Politicians are likened to Adolf Hitler. Gaza is described as a “ghetto.” Police misconduct is equated with the Gestapo. Right-wing parties are reflexively branded “Nazis.” Each comparison may feel righteous. Each may generate outrage, clicks, and applause. But all of them flatten history — and when history is flattened, atrocity is cheapened.


Nazi concentration camps were not simply places of detention. They were instruments of terror, forced labor, and mass death. Prisoners were starved, tortured, worked to exhaustion, and murdered arbitrarily. Most did not leave alive. Applying that term to detention facilities, however flawed or in need of reform, is not moral clarity; it is moral inflation. And when everything is a concentration camp, nothing is.


The Hitler comparison follows the same logic of collapse. Hitler was not merely a controversial leader or demagogue. He abolished elections, eradicated civil society, launched a world war, and oversaw the systematic extermination of an entire people. Turning him into a stand-in for any disliked politician does not signal vigilance; it signals historical illiteracy that reduces the most extreme figure of modern history to a rhetorical shortcut.


Calling Gaza a “ghetto” is no less reckless. Nazi ghettos were sealed holding pens created explicitly as waystations to death camps. Jews were trapped, starved, denied medicine, and shot for attempting to leave. What Gaza went through since October 7, 2023, can be described as tragic and unfortunate, shaped by war, ideology, and governance — but it is not a Nazi ghetto. Insisting otherwise does not elevate Palestinian suffering; it falsifies Jewish history.


Equating modern police overreach or mistakes with the Gestapo continues this moral flattening. The Gestapo was a secret police force designed to crush dissent and enforce racial law through terror, disappearance, and deportation. It was not an imperfect institution struggling with accountability. It was an institution designed for domination. Erasing that distinction erases meaning.


This same impulse now consumes Anne Frank. She is routinely repurposed as a universal symbol for “children in conflict zones,” her image and words recycled to collapse all modern suffering into Holocaust equivalence. Her diary is quoted alongside contemporary war imagery to imply that today’s conflicts are simply the same crime repeating itself.


But Anne Frank was not a generic child caught in conflict. She was a Jewish child hunted for extermination because of who she was. She did not die because diplomacy failed or a war dragged on. She died because a regime had decided that no Jewish child, anywhere, had the right to live. There was no scenario in which she survived if the Nazi project succeeded. Her death was not a byproduct of violence; it was its purpose. She was one of over a million Jewish children murdered in the Holocaust alone — a number so vast it defies imagination and renders every contemporary metaphorical appropriation almost trivial in comparison.


Stripped of that reality, Anne Frank becomes a floating moral weapon, detached from her Jewishness and from the ideology that murdered her. This does not universalize her story. It hollows it out. If Anne Frank means “every child in every conflict anywhere,” she ultimately means nothing.


No word better illustrates this collapse than genocide. Genocide is not a synonym for suffering, war, displacement, or civilian death. It is the intentional destruction of a people as such. The Holocaust was not genocidal because many Jews died; Jews died because it was genocidal. Intent mattered. Ideology mattered. Totality mattered.


Today, genocide is deployed as a moral accelerant: a word meant to end argument rather than describe reality. War becomes genocide. Harsh conditions become genocide. Tragedy becomes genocide. When everything is genocide, the word loses its diagnostic power. Worse, it loses its warning function. If genocide is always happening, it becomes harder to recognize when it truly is, and easier to dismiss when it matters most.


For Jews, this erosion carries an added cruelty. The word genocide exists because of what was done to us. It was coined to name an unprecedented crime. To see it diluted, misapplied, and even turned back on Jews themselves is nothing short of historical vandalism.


For Jews, this erosion carries an added and unforgivable cruelty. The word genocide exists because of what was done to us. It was coined to name an unprecedented crime that had no adequate language before it — a systematic attempt to erase an entire people from existence. That word is part of the moral record of Jewish destruction. It is not abstract. It is not transferable property.


To see it diluted and misapplied is already damaging. To see it turned back on Jews themselves is something far worse. It is not merely wrong; it is obscene. It takes the language created to describe our near-annihilation and repurposes it as an accusation against the descendants of its victims. It transforms memory into a weapon and reverses moral gravity itself.


This inversion is not accidental. Once Holocaust language is stripped of precision, it becomes infinitely reusable, and therefore easily weaponized. The moment genocide is no longer about intent to destroy a people as such, it becomes a tool for erasing Jewish history rather than preserving it. Jews are no longer the paradigmatic victims of genocide, but its convenient stand-ins as perpetrators. The crime that once demanded Jewish remembrance is redeployed to delegitimize Jewish existence.


That is why this is not simply semantic sloppiness. It teaches a generation that Jewish suffering is provisional, that Jewish memory is negotiable, and that the moral lessons of the Holocaust can be flipped on demand. It tells Jews that even the language forged from our destruction is not safe from appropriation.


There is no moral universe in which this can be excused as “criticism” or “solidarity.” When the vocabulary born of Jewish extermination is used to indict Jews, something essential has collapsed — not just in language, but in conscience.


And I could go on and on: Immigration enforcement is framed as “deportations” in the Holocaust sense, collapsing administrative or legal processes into echoes of cattle cars and one-way journeys to death. Food shortages or blockades are described as “starvation as a weapon,” stripped of the historical reality that Nazi starvation policies were total, intentional, and designed to kill, not to pressure or compel. Military responses are branded “collective punishment,” not as a legal claim to be examined, but as a Holocaust-coded accusation meant to suggest Jews are now doing what was once done to them.


Certainly, many people who engage in this language believe they are acting in good faith, but intention does not neutralize consequence. The effect of Holocaustwashing is not heightened moral awareness; it is moral exhaustion. “Never Again” was meant to sharpen attention, not flatten it into permanent hysteria. When atrocity has no threshold, memory becomes unusable.


None of this is an argument for indifference. Suffering deserves attention. Injustice deserves opposition. Abuse deserves accountability. But history offers many frameworks for critique — authoritarianism, state violence, war crimes, civil rights violations — without hijacking the most extreme atrocity in modern history to win a debate or silence critics.


Memory is not preserved by volume or repetition. It is preserved by precision and restraint. The Holocaust does not need to be invoked to make a cause matter. And when it is invoked carelessly, it does not elevate the present. It diminishes the past, and leaves us less prepared to recognize real evil when it appears again.

Future Of Jewish substack

Trump Explains To Benjamin Franklin How A Microwave Works

 B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!

alchehrm@gmail.com

---

The meeting took place in the White House kitchen at 2:00 AM, mostly because Ben Franklin’s ghost was fascinated by the "indoor lightning boxes" and Trump was looking for a late-night taco bowl.

Franklin, holding a spectral bifocal to the glass door, was convinced there was a tiny, trapped sun inside the appliance.

The "Science" Lesson

"Benny, look at me. Put the kite down. It’s over. You did the key, you did the string—very low energy," Trump said, hitting the 'Popcorn' button with the flourish of a man diffusing a bomb. "This is the 'Mega-Wave.' It’s like your lightning, but we’ve domesticated it. We put it in a box, we told it to behave, and now it makes cheese melt in fifteen seconds. It’s a miracle. A total miracle."

The Technical Breakdown:

The Physics: "People ask me, 'How does it work?' and I tell them: Molecules. Very tiny, very fast molecules. They’re dancing, Ben. They’re doing a tremendous dance. They get excited, they get hot—sort of like my rallies, but with more radiation."

The Speed: "You used to wait three hours for a turkey? Sad. I can take a frozen block of 'America First' beef and turn it into lava before you can finish your first sentence about 'Early to bed, early to rise.' By the way, that’s a terrible slogan. Nobody likes it. People want to stay up and watch the polls."

The "Metal" Incident

The vibe shifted when Franklin tried to put a silver spoon inside to see if it would "conduct the ethereal fire."

Trump: "No! No metal, Ben! You’ll blow up the West Wing! Metal is for the outside of the building, with my name on it in big letters. Inside the box, metal is a disaster. It’s like a 'Never-Trumper'—it creates sparks, it makes a lot of noise, and eventually, the whole thing smells like burnt plastic."

As the microwave let out its final, shrill beep, Trump pulled out a steaming, slightly soggy pizza bagel and held it up like a trophy."See that, Ben? No wood, no coal, no waiting for a storm. Just a button. I’m the most 'electric' president in history. Even more than you, and you literally got hit by a bolt of it. You’re the 'Old Electricity.' I’m the 'Streaming Electricity.' It’s a different vibe."Franklin reportedly stared at the pizza bagel, noted that the middle was still frozen solid despite the edges being the temperature of the sun's surface, and muttered something about "a Republic, if you can keep it—and if you don't burn it down for a snack."

President Washington Meets President Trump - Or #1 Meets #45 and #47

 B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!

alchehrm@gmail.com

---

In a historic meeting that local psychics are calling "statistically impossible but on-brand," Donald Trump recently sat down with the ghost of George Washington in the Blue Room.

Witnesses say the meeting was civil, though Washington spent the first twenty minutes trying to figure out if the President’s tie was a "standard-issue battle flag" or "merely a very long, very red silk tongue."

The conversation reportedly began with a misunderstanding regarding the "Father of the Country" title.

"George, baby, you did a great job with the startup phase," Trump was heard saying, while leaning back in a chair that he had already personally appraised. "But I’ve taken the brand global. We’ve got the towers, we’ve got the rallies—you had a wooden boat and some guys in tights. It’s a different league."

Key Discussion Points:

Real Estate Logistics: Trump offered to help Washington "rebrand" Mount Vernon, suggesting that the "colonial-shabby-chic" look was hurting its resale value. "Needs more marble. And maybe a fountain that shoots diet soda. People love it."

The Cherry Tree Incident: Washington’s famous "I cannot tell a lie" story was met with a long, confused silence. Trump eventually broke it by patting Washington on the shoulder: "That’s your problem, George. You’ve gotta pivot. You didn't cut the tree; you 'downsized' it to create 'panoramic views.'"

The Wig Situation: Trump spent several minutes critiquing Washington’s powdered hair. "The powder is okay for the 1700s, but it gets on the suit. You need the spray. It’s like a helmet. I’ll send you a case."


The Policy Briefing

The two leaders attempted to discuss the Constitution, though the conversation stalled when Washington asked about the state of the "well-regulated militia."


TopicWashington's ViewTrump's Rebuttal
Executive Power"I refused a crown to ensure the survival of the Republic.""I would have worn the crown. It would have been a great crown. The best diamonds."
Foreign Policy"Avoid permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.""I agree. Especially with the ones that don't pay their dues. They're deadbeats, George."
The Capitol"A city of stone and swamp, built on the sweat of the free.""It’s a swamp, alright. I'm draining it. Very messy. I might put a hotel over the drainage pipe."

Trump pulled out a series of charts showing his TV ratings, which he laid out directly over Washington’s original hand-drawn map of the Ohio Valley.


Crossing the Delaware: "I saw the painting, George. Very small boat. Very dangerous. I would have used the yacht. A mega-yacht. We would’ve had a buffet on the way over. The Hessians would’ve surrendered just for the shrimp cocktail. You did it the hard way. I like people who weren't frozen in a rowboat."


Valley Forge: "Terrible location. No amenities. No heating. I would’ve built a tower there, put a 'Forge' spa in the basement, and charged the British triple for rooms. You missed a huge licensing opportunity with the 'Continental Army' brand. We could’ve sold the boots. Oh wait, you didn't have boots. Sad."

The Conclusion

As the spirit of the first President began to fade back into the ether, he reportedly offered one final piece of advice: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

Trump allegedly replied, "Is that a quote? We should put that on a hat. Can we get 'Pretended Patriotism' in a nice neon font? No, wait—let's just stick with 'MAGA.' It’s punchier."

Washington reportedly sighed so deeply it blew out three candles and several nearby lightbulbs before vanishing.